Scientists Say Eat More Worms

In a paper published in the journal, PLoS ONE, scientists at Wageningen University in The Netherlands proposed that eating mealworms is a more sensible way of acquiring protein in the diet than eating chicken, pork or cattle. Per the article:

Compared to a kilogram of edible protein in meat from cows, chickens or pigs, production of the same amount of mealworm protein emits fewer greenhouse gases and requires much less land to grow. The findings support the argument that environmentally conscious eaters may do well to include beetle larvae in their diets. "This study demonstrates that mealworms should be considered a more sustainable source of edible protein," the team writes in a paper published yesterday in the journal PLoS ONE...Among the things that the worm-like larvae have going for them, they don't emit methane. Also, they are prolific. Depending on the species, females release up to 1,500 eggs over a lifetime. Larvae develop quickly and they convert their food into protein efficiently, at a similar rate to chicken but better than pigs and cattle.

Replies to This Discussion

even if some people don't like the idea of killing animals, this is not sufficient justification to say that others can not consume animals.

Wow....it really shoudl be enough to NOT cause pain and suffering. It really, really should. But it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to reasons why humans should stop consuming meat and dairy products. As I keep saying, there are too many people on the planet to feed on a Western diet. We can't produce that much meat and dairy without destroying the ecosystema dn polluting the water. It is wasteful. It is also bad for our health. Americans are pathetically overweight and sick with the "diseases of affluence" which derive from eating too mich meat and dairy. Thoughout most of human history people only consumed small amounts of animal products...as a "flavoring" to their food and some extra calories. Modern western people can't seem to go 5 minutes without it. It's costing us a FORTUNE in health care. Why should we pay for people to get bipass surgery and treat their type 2 diabetes when they brought it on themselves!!? This is getting STUPID. This is a TERRIBLE way for us to live!!

And you better be putting that neural implant in YOUR brain...because you have no right to capture and perform surgery on other beings. NOT a good way to open a dialogue with our fellow Earthlings!!

Wow....it really shoudl be enough to NOT cause pain and suffering. It really, really should. But it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to reasons why humans should stop consuming meat and dairy products. As I keep saying, there are too many people on the planet to feed on a Western diet.

1) Life eats life. That is a simple fact of existence. Evolution demonstrates quite clearly that predation happens universally. Plants eat animals, animals eat plants, fungus eat plants and animals, animals eat fungus and plants. The mere fact of consuming animals is not sufficient basis for constructing moral obligations decrying the consumption of animals. You are missing quite a wide berth of middle ground in your reasoning.

2) What is a "Western diet"?

We can't produce that much meat and dairy without destroying the ecosystema dn polluting the water. It is wasteful. It is also bad for our health. Americans are pathetically overweight and sick with the "diseases of affluence" which derive from eating too mich meat and dairy.

3) In one sense you are right: current CAFO models are environmentally destructive and really ought to be done away with. Unfortunately, the desertification that would come with the massive irrigation re-direction projects necessary to sustain a vegan-dominated lifestyle throughout the world would render CAFO models humane by comparison. Go read, "The Vegetarian Myth" to learn more about that.

4) Meat is not the primary cause of weight-gain in Western society. It's not even a secondary, or tertiary cause. The understood cause of fatness in the Westernized world is excess consumption of refined carbohydrates. You will not find an otherwise normal, healthy person who eats a clean (that is, no sugary refined carbs) omnivorous diet suffering from excessive weight-gain.

"The vegetarian myth" is pseudoscience with no evidence to back it up. All the evidence shows that a vegetarian/vegan diet is healthier for humans. There is no real debate on that issue. Meateaters just want to believe they can "have their saturated fat and eat it too."

The Standard American Diet is the classic Western Diet, high in meat, dairy, eggs, fat, processed sugars, processed fiber-less grain products....low in vegetables, fruits and other whole foods.

Meat, dairy and processed foods all contribute to weight gain. Actually dairy is probably the worst offender. Considering it is a substance meant to cause a calf to gain hundreds of pounds very quickly...it isn't much of a surprise.

Life eats life. That is a simple fact of existence. Evolution demonstrates quite clearly that predation happens universally. Plants eat animals, animals eat plants, fungus eat plants and animals, animals eat fungus and plants. The mere fact of consuming animals is not sufficient basis for constructing moral obligations decrying the consumption of animals. You are missing quite a wide berth of middle ground in your reasoning.

Life eats life....and humans eat plants. The consumption of animals is not needed for optimal human health. There is no flaw in my reasoning. Killing animals when we don't need to is immoral. And the large scale production of animal products (meat/dairy) is harmful to our environment and a waste of resources. Veganism is logically a superior way of life from every standpoint.

"The vegetarian myth" is pseudoscience with no evidence to back it up. All the evidence shows that a vegetarian/vegan diet is healthier for humans. There is no real debate on that issue. Meateaters just want to believe they can "have their saturated fat and eat it too."

Show us the studies. Otherwise, meat eaters could say the same about the vegans. Vegans are on a moral crusade to force their absolutist ideology onto others. Without the supporting evidence, it's just posturing.

I looked into veganism FIRST as a healthy diet. The hard core animal rights vegans often don't care about their own health and know little about nutrition. They are often "junk food vegans".....after all Oreos are technicallly vegan.

I'm actually most interested in my OWN welfare and health. Since I can get all my nutrients without "ordering a hit" on an innocent animal..it also made sense that way. On top of that the diet has far less negative impact on the environment. So it was a win/win/win situation. Everything about it is better...nothing is worse. There was no logical reason to NOT be vegan. As a natural animal lover I am pleased to no longer be paying for the murders of animals. I know many people do not think about that when they go to the supermarket.....that is part of the problem. People have pet dogs and say they are animal lovers....all while paying for pigs to be killed. Pigs that are as intelligent and affectionate as their pet dogs. The cognitive dissonance is frightening!

As a natural animal lover I am pleased to no longer be paying for the murders of animals. I know many people do not think about that when they go to the supermarket.....that is part of the problem. People have pet dogs and say they are animal lovers....all while paying for pigs to be killed. Pigs that are as intelligent and affectionate as their pet dogs. The cognitive dissonance is frightening!

The animal food industry hides its practices from people. If people had to see an open-air slaughterhouse by the side of the road every day they went to work, there'd be a lot more vegans. So yes, they create this cognitive dissonance.

I watched animal-rights movies on Youtube, and it was quite eye-opening. Those people have a real point about the massive abuse of animals, in factory farms, in the fur industry, etc. etc.

There is a lot of politics in pushing high animal food consumption in the U.S. Marion Nestle is a nutrition expert who's served on government panels devising the "Dietary Guidelines for Americans" (or something like that). She wrote in her book Food Politics about how you can't tell people "eat less meat" because of the food lobbyists. You have to say "eat less saturated fat" and hope people figure it out. She said the confusion Americans have about what is healthy eating is largely from food industry influence on our public health messages.

ps Also, I've read that the U.S. government subsidizes the meat industry. Without the subsidies, meat would be a lot more expensive. With our taxes, we are paying people to produce this unhealthy food that involves the abuse of animals.

Similarly, the junk food industry is subsidized, via subsidies for corn, which is used a lot in making high-fructose corn syrup, a cheap sweetener that is used in a lot of junk food, and is somewhat worse for people than cane sugar because it contains more fructose. And probably by other subsidies as well.

The food industry is highly involved in creating obesity in the U.S., by junk foods. Fruit and vegetables cost a lot more than eating junk in boxes, even though the junk in boxes has a lot of added cost from the processing. Fruit and vegetable growers don't receive subsidies.

Is that an actual position in favor of vegetarianism? They seem to be on both sides of the issue.

I find this particular statement interesting:

Features of a vegetarian diet that may reduce risk of chronic disease include lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, soy products, fiber, and phytochemicals.

Obviously it depends on how much of the fish, poultry etc. you are eating. Those calories will displace calories from plant food.

From a health point of view, it doesn't matter if you eat small amounts of animal food or none at all. (unless with allergies)

Arguably similarly true for the environmental aspects of animal food consumption. In a food environment where animal food is pushed highly by advertising and people eat a lot of it, being 90% of the way to veganism is just about as good for the environment as 100%.

I can see how people would go for 100%, it's a matter of principle. If you want to convey an idea to others and yourself, being 100% vegan is clearer than 90%. Yet in a quantitative way, that extra 10% makes little difference to the society one lives in. I have some of the same feelings about animal pain as Pamela does. But if I weren't allergic to fish I'd likely be taking fish oil - a very minor consumption of animal food.

I chose the American Dietetic Assoc. to emphasize that this mainstream organization of dieticians states that vegetarian diets including vegan can be nutritionally adequate and actually have many health advantages. It isn't a vegetarian advocacy organization. Similar advice abounds from nutrition experts, telling us to eat more plants and less animal food.

One reason my vegan diet is so surprisingly adequate in many micronutrients is that it's very lowfat. Per calorie, the high-fat foods have less micronutrients. That's one reason I can get away with a grain-free, legume-free, free of many plants I'm allergic to, vegan diet.